The Application of Community Policing Strategies to Police Organizational StructureRhett R. WhartonCJ 7098 – DEMONSTRATION PROJECT December 5, 2012

ABSTRACTCommunity oriented policing has become a popular topic in the examination of the modern criminal justice system. The various types of community oriented policing strategies (hot spot, problem oriented, intelligence led and broken windows) havedemonstrated their effectiveness according to the literature. However, implementing these community oriented policing strategies has been difficult dueto the current command and control organizational structure present in most police agencies. The benefit of retaining the historically popular command and control organizational structure to both police agencies and communities requires serious examination of its impediment to the full implementation of community policing in the day to day activities of police and its necessity to police under certain infrequent conditions (e.g. civil unrest/rioting, natural disasters, terrorist attacks).

I. Introduction: The Evolving Roles of Police in Society.

When considered as a group, community, hot spot, intelligence-

led, problem-oriented, and broken windows policing form an

overarching strategy. These individual strategies or threads

concentrate on different areas within policing using the same

basic overall, community-oriented perspective. When combined,

these strategies can help create a new, broader, holistic

definition of community policing. None of these strategies are a

hundred percent effective in all situations but, when combined,

they offer police agencies a multiplicity of choices for solving

their own unique community problems.

In order for community policing to fulfill a complete paradigm

shift in U.S. policing, it must combine the current multiplicity

of policing strategies into a more holistic (i.e., combining

perspectives), dynamic (i.e., giving agencies choices) and fluid

(i.e., by changing or balancing a dual organizational structure)

community policing strategy. The traditional hierarchical,

paramilitary command and control organizational structure in

place within most police agencies runs counter to the spirit and

substance of community policing and presents serious obstacles to

the full implementation of community policing.

Police in the US fulfill multiple roles and perform various

functions on a daily basis on varying scales and proportions.

With 18,000+ autonomous police agencies across the US, it is easy

to understand why individual police agencies are continually in

the process of maturation.

As each police agency matures into more sophisticated roles, it

requires certain structural and/or organizational cultural shifts

of perspective to successfully master the new policing role(s).

The President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and the

Administration of Justice of 1967 ushered in the Law-Enforcement

era of policing, contending police were the front lines of the

criminal justice system and their law-enforcement role was to

intercept, investigate and arrest criminals, thereby initiating

the criminal justice process (Kelling and Bratton, 1998).

Twenty years after the 1967 President’s Commission on Law

Enforcement, the John F. Kennedy School of Government at Harvard

University convened its first Executive Session (1985-1991)

consisting of 30 police executives and academic experts charged

with reviewing policing practices and making recommendations.

The Executive Session (1985-1991) Perspectives on Policing found

fundamental change was needed in police practices. The session

spearheaded a new movement towards legitimizing the development

of a new police model known as community policing with eight out

of seventeen resulting studies featuring community policing with

several more emphasizing community policing (Bayley & Nixon,

2010).

The most authoritative research summary on policing activities

comes from the National Research Council (NRC) (Skogan and Frydl,

2004) which concluded police are able to reduce crime when they

focus operations on particular problems or places and in

conjunction with other nontraditional remedies such as abatement

and other regulatory treatments. In their review of the highest

quality empirical studies, the NRC found the most effective

results were demonstrated with some type of problem solving and

especially when combined with ‘hot spot’ locations (Skogan and

Frydl, 2004). The Executive Session (1985-1991) and the National

Research Council (Skogan and Frydl, 2004) together provide strong

empirical support for the efficacy of community policing and its

derivatives (e.g., hot spot, problem oriented, intelligence led

and broken windows policing).

Kelling and Moore (1988) assert US policing is currently in

the community era of policing and has outgrown the reforms of the

political and professional eras of past. Further, they assert

policing is moving away from the law enforcement/constitutional

era and into the community policing era. This maturation

facilitates the need for structural and organizational culture

philosophy change by the police agency as it moves past the

balancing of individual against societal rights role and into the

community service role of police. Abandonment of the

traditional, paramilitary command and control organizational

structures in place across most US police agencies has been cited

as a major reason as to why community policing has yet to fulfill

the mandate a new paradigm shift demands (Kelling & Moore, 1988).

Since, Kelling & Moore’s (1988) conclusions, new policing

strategies (e.g. community, hot-spot, problem-oriented,

intelligence led and broken windows, etc.) have arisen and each

has their own set of advocates and unique advantages. These

individual strategies or threads concentrate on different areas

within policing using the same basic overall community-oriented

perspective. When combined, these strategies can fulfill a new

broader, holistic definition of community policing.

In order for community policing to fulfill a complete paradigm

shift in US policing, it must combine the current multiplicity of

policing perspectives into a more holistic (i.e. combining

perspectives), dynamic (i.e. giving agencies choices) and fluid

(i.e. by eliminating the paramilitary command and control

organizational structure or balancing a duel organizational

structure) community policing strategy. By doing so, police

agencies will be more aligned to the core principals of community

policing while also enjoying the benefit of having a multiplicity

of strategies and/or tactics to use in dealing with community

problems whether they are the typical day to day crime problems

or the few and far between events such as natural disasters,

civil unrest or terrorist attacks.

II. The History and Definitions of Community Policing

The history of community policing can be traced to the 1970’s

when academia and practitioners alike sought to correct

inappropriate police responses to the social/civil unrest they

witnessed in many American cities during the late 1960’s (Zhao,

Lovrich and Thurman, 1999). This was followed by a period of

debate over what community policing actually was and if it was

real or just rhetorical. This led advocates such as Kelling

(1988) to call it a “quiet revolution in policing.” Critics

such as Klockars (1988) argued the nature of police work made it

difficult if not impossible to implement. In the meantime, the

National Institute of Justice (NIJ) was disseminating reports and

documentation relating to successful community policing efforts

such as problem oriented policing (Eck and Spelman, 1987) in

Newport News, Virginia.

The US Violent Crime and Law Enforcement Act of 1994 under the

Clinton administration provided approximately $30 billion in

funding towards ‘community policing’ and other innovative

policing strategies (He, Zhao, and Lovrich, 2005). The US

Department of Justice’s Community Oriented Policing Service

(COPS) is the federal agency responsible for dispersing the $30

billion to various police agencies across the country. These

changes include but are not limited to revision of its mission

statement, strategic plan, policy and procedure protocols as well

as comprehensive training for police on community policing

principals (U.S. Department of Justice., 2000).

There are a plethora of similar but slightly differing

definitions of community policing in academia and its

implementation has varied over time and among police agencies

(Green and Mastrofski, 1988; Rosenbaum, 1994). In 1994, the

Community Policing Consortium tried to clear up the confusion

surrounding what constituted community policing by stating

community policing is when police and the community collaborate

to identify and solve community problems. Walker (1999) asserts

community policing de-emphasizes response to calls for service

and crime fighting, concentrates on neighborhood-level disorder,

develops closer ties to citizens and government agencies that

have involvement in community problems, and redefines the role of

police as problem solvers and community stewards.

The debate still continues. Worrall (2008) asserts community

policing is achieved when the police seek out positive

relationships with citizens. In turn, citizens become more

involved in the policing profession. Finally, both citizens and

police have to work collectively to address crime (Worrall,

2008). According to Skogan (2006), community policing is an

organizational strategy in which citizen involvement, problem

solving and decentralization are the guiding principals. Another

perspective suggests that de-emphasizing traditional crime

fighting and embracing long-range problem solving with attention

to signs of disorder is the sum and substance of community

policing (Walker and Cole, 2013).

Community policing is a general term that covers a multitude

of programs (Cordner, 1997). Many believe community policing has

evolved past its defining stage. However, it has not yet been

able to prove that it can achieve all of its goals (Sadd and

Grinc, 1996). Mastrofski, Willis, Rienhart and Kochel (2007)

assert police agencies report major barriers to the

implementation of community policing. Carl Klockars (1998)

argues that community policing is just another ‘circumlocution’

that shrouds the police’s real, legitimate and non-negotiable

right to use force in human society. The history, traditions and

culture of previous police models (i.e. political, professional

and law enforcement) have diluted the effects of community

policing implementation (Klockars, 1988). Despite the modern

shift towards reforms (i.e. community policing), the paramilitary

command and control model implemented during the

professionalization era is still a central feature of US police

operations and culture (Skolnick and Fyfe, 1993). The

established beliefs about the nature and roles of police have

changed over time to plural perspectives and practices all

labeled policing (Bayley and Shearing, 1996).

III. Hot Spot Policing.

Lawrence Sherman is recognized as the father of the hot spot

policing perspective starting with the Minneapolis Hot Spots

Patrol Experiment and the Kansas City Gun Experiment (Sherman,

1990; Sherman, Gartin and Buerger, 1989; Sherman & Rogan, 1995).

The results of the Minneapolis Hot Spots Patrol Experiment found

a 13% percent drop in crime in the treatment areas, and the

Kansas City Gun Experiment resulted in a reduction in gun crimes

and an increase in guns seized. Sherman’s work stimulated

further research into hot spot policing, most notably a true

randomized experiment conducted by Weisburd and Mazerolle (1995).

More importantly, Weisburd and Mazerolle’s (1995) findings were

favorable concluding police crackdowns dramatically reduced order

maintenance type calls for service to the police.

Research has consistently found crime routinely clusters in

small geographic areas termed hot spots (Weisburd and Mazerolle,

2000). In order to reduce crime, police resources are simply

focused on the particular geographic area or ‘hot spot’ where

crime is concentrated (Weisburd and Braga, 2006). Sherman and

Rogan’s (1995) experiment that targeted gun violence in Kansas

City and McGarrell, Chermak and Weiss’s (2000) study of an

Indianapolis inititive targeting illegal gun possession together

demonstrated directed patrol can have a positive impact. From his

evidence-based perspective, Worrall (2008) affirms directed

patrol of hot spots can reduce certain types of crime (i.e. gun

violence and drug activity) but cautions it is not a cure-all and

can have unintended outcomes.

Hot spot policing can find its theoretical origins in the

development of problem oriented policing advancements (Goldstein,

1990), the support of the situational crime prevention

perspective (Clarke, 1992) and the implementation of routine

activities matched to crime patterns (Cohen and Felson, 1979)

(NRC, 2004). Both of the latter theories are able to incorporate

geography, opportunity and motivation to explain criminal

behavior. The availability of cheap desktop computer crime

mapping programs has contributed heavily to the ability of police

to understand crime geographically (Weisburd and McKewen, 1998).

Many hot spot policing programs include a problem oriented

policing element and are evaluated as a part of problem oriented

strategies by the NRC (2004), further strengthening the argument

these individual strategies (i.e. hot spot, problem oriented,

intelligence led and broken windows) are actually part of a

larger more comprehensive community policing strategy.

Rosenbaum (2006), while endorsing the evidence supporting the

existence of hot spots, is critical of the traditional

enforcement tactics often brought to bear, claiming traditional

responses to these hot spot areas run counter to community

policing principals of thorough analysis and innovative

solutions. The accessibility of computer mapping techniques has

allowed police agencies across the country to easily track crime

hot spots, propelling the hot spot policing perspective forward

with almost all police agencies currently using some type of

directed patrol (Weisburd and Lum, 2005). Targeted policing

proactively identifies and targets problem areas and specific

types of offenses in an effort to reduce crime by using ‘proven’

police tactics and strategies that focus on the identified hot

spots and specific types of crime while reducing expenses

(Sherman, Farrington and Welsh 2002; Braga, 2001).

IV. Problem-Oriented Policing

Herman Goldstein (1979), the father of problem-oriented

policing, asserts police must separate different aspects of their

role and develop strategies to address particular problems in

order to reduce crime (Goldstein, 1990). Goldstein (1990)

believed that police had become prisoners of their own response

to calls for service. This mandate forces them to be reactionary

and prevents focusing on the underlying problem. In response,

Goldstein (1990) asserted police should be looking for community

problems within their purview, focusing on clusters of similar

incidents rather than a single incident.

In the 1990s, problem oriented policing became a central

policing strategy. Goldstein’s (1990) problem oriented police

model challenges the ‘one size fits all’ standard model of

policing with its emphasis on developing tailor made police

tactics to address problems. According to Walker and Cole

(2013), problem-oriented policing is simply a planning process

telling police how to approach their objective in a different

manner.

Eck and Spelman (1987) have contributed heavily to the

problem-oriented policing perspective by advancing the Scanning,

Analysis, Response and Assessment (SARA) model for systematically

addressing problems. Their research has encouraged police to

become ‘problem busters’ instead of incident handlers.

There are four phases in Eck and Spelman’s SARA model. In the

scanning phase, the problem is identified along with its nature

and scope in terms of seriousness. Baseline measures are also

recorded so an assessment can be done after the response phase is

completed. Typically, a list of stakeholders who are private or

public organizations and individuals who have a stake or benefit

in the problem being eliminated are brought to the table during

this scanning phase.

The second phase is the core of the SARA model in which a

comprehensive analysis of the problem is undertaken, correlations

are identified and their cause and effect relationships are

understood before a broad range of responses are considered. In

the response phase, the SARA model uses knowledge gained in the

analysis phase to design a response specific to the problem. The

response may eliminate or reduce the problem and/or improve the

community in some demonstrable manner.

The SARA model’s final phase is assessment of the response

effectiveness in achieving predetermined goals. If failure in

achieving goals is the result, then the SARA process should be

repeated with a renewed interest in gathering more information in

the scanning phase. This, leads to a new (hopefully) more

comprehensive analysis of the problem. This has lead Clarke and

Eck (2005) to assert the entire SARA model process should be

thought of as circular in nature as they seek to contrast their

risky facilities perspective against hot spot policing.

Eck and Spelman’s SARA model (1987) offered an alternative to

the traditional tactics used by police to handle problems by

tailoring the response to a specific problem after realizing that

both community policing and other crime control strategies used

the same responses (tactics) to address a variety of problems.

Worrall (2008) points out problem-oriented policing can occur

without citizen involvement. However, this is contrary to the

community service policing ideals.

Problem oriented policing is centered on the application of

the scientific method, and the SARA model gives police a

framework to utilize in solving problems utilizing a scientific

process. According to the National Research Council (1994),

problem oriented policing overlaps hot spot policing. However,

it goes further than specific offenders or geography to include

analysis of community problems.

V. Intelligence Led Policing

Intelligence led policing was introduced in the United Kingdom

by the Kent Constabulary in response to increases in burglaries

and car thefts and a diminishing budget. British police created

intelligence units to target specific offenders for investigation

and prosecution while de-emphasizing calls for service. Over

three years, crime was reduced by a quarter (Clarke and Newman,

2007). A broad band of information is collected from sources

such as as closed circuit television, data mining and crime

mapping programs and then analyzed for clues in how best to

target police resources in intelligence led policing (Bayley and

Nixon).

In the U.S., intelligence led policing has been viewed as a

way of linking various small pieces of information regarding

terrorist activity together to make sense when reviewed as a

whole (Peterson, 2005). Kelling and Bratton (2006) argue that

police play a critical role in the U.S. counter terrorism war,

and this role must be incorporated into the everyday activities

of all police agencies. No other U.S. police department even

comes close to the investment made in intelligence led policing

as the New York City Police Department, with over 1,000 officers

assigned to counter-terrorism. Many of these officers are fluent

in multiple foreign languages, and some are even stationed in

terrorism hot spots outside of the US (Finnegan, 2005).

According to Clarke and Newman (2007), there are three flaws

with US intelligence led policing: the assumption all gathered

information will at some point identify suspicious activity, the

premise all individuals and agencies will share information, and

the inherent problem in human nature regarding information

sharing, especially in the intelligence field. Stojkovic,

Kalinich and Klofas (2012) describes the professional police

officer of the 21st century as a ‘intelligence analyst’ who uses

vast amounts of information to produce efficient and effective

responses to crime. This will not only require new job designs

but also new manners of selection, training and development so

police meet the needs of their community (Stojkovic et al.,

2012). Because new policing strategies such as intelligence led

policing will require significant change to organizational

structures, job design will likely become an extremely

challenging item for administrators in the 21st century

(Stojkovic et al., 2012).

Intelligence led policing ties neatly into community policing

as Kelling and Bratton (2006) argue local police officers gain

better understanding of their local subgroups within the

community, enabling them to more easily elicit help in gathering

information or developing informants. Community policing

according to Clarke and Newman (2007) has advantages over

traditional intelligence work by avoiding unsubstantiated lists

of suspects, the negative charges of profiling, the legalities of

phone-tapping, unproductive surveillance of persons or targets,

and public suspicion of secret operations and entrapment.

Community policing according to Clarke and Newman (2007) is the

best strategy for police agencies to use for gathering

intelligence and protecting vulnerable targets.

VI. Broken Windows Policing

The broken windows policing concept was first introduced by

James Wilson and George Kelling in their March 1982 article

“Broken Windows: The Police and Neighborhood Safety,” published

in the Atlantic. Wilson and Kelling (1982) sought to dispute the

findings of the Police Foundation’s review of the Safe and Clean

Neighborhoods Program in New Jersey. In particular, the city of

Newark focused on foot patrol as a means of reducing crime and on

citizen’s perception or ‘fear of crime.’ Wilson and Kelling

argued the Newark citizens’ fear of crime was reduced and such

reduction of fear is a realistic, positive goal of policing. It

has been well received by both academia and the general public.

In response, George Kelling and Catherine Cole (1996) further

advance the perspective and call for police agencies to develop

strategies that maintain order (order maintenance) in public

places, thus reducing crime and the fear of crime. Maintaining

order at the street level requires police arresting individuals

for crimes such as public drunkenness, loitering, littering,

soliciting, panhandling and other quality of life crimes.

Disorder according to Skogan (1994) can be broken down into two

categories - human and physical disorders. Human disorders

consist of public drinking, drug dealing, loitering, etc. while

physical disorders consist of vandalism, trash, non-functional

lighting, poor public housing design, etc. (Skogan, 1994).

This intensive enforcement model applied broadly to

incivilities and disorder at the street level has become known as

broken windows policing. The broken windows approach draws its

justification from research suggesting that there is a strong

link between minor criminal offenses and disorder and serious

criminal offenses and the decay of cities (Wilson & Kelling,

1982; Skogan, 1990). Advocates proclaim reducing less serious

criminal behavior on the streets reduces more serious types of

crime and, perhaps more importantly for supporters, the fear of

crime by citizens and halts the communities from undergoing

further decay.

The leading example of broken windows policing strategy is the

New York City Police Departments zero-tolerance policy crackdown

on minor offenses involving incivilities and public disorder it

adopted in favor of community policing in the early 1990s. Crime

dropped in NYC throughout the 1990’s and many practitioners’,

academics and politicians have credited the NYC zero-tolerance

policy. However, crime fell in most US cities throughout the

1990s and many scholars such as Eck and Maguire (2000) conclude

the supposed correlation between the crime rate decrease in crime

in NYC and the institution of the zero-tolerance are spurious as

a result.

VII. Arguments for abandonment of paramilitary command &

control organizational

structure.

The paramilitary organizational structure and the culture it

develops is a salient feature throughout U.S police agencies and

begins in the police academy (Kraska, 1996). Beyond the

uniforms, rank and weaponry, police agencies with a paramilitary

command and control organizational structure typically are

exceedingly centralized and specialized with formal written

policies (a.k.a. Standard Operating Procedures/SOP’s), tall

hierarchies and robust administration (Reiss, 1992).

Organizational structure is defined as the sum total of the

means in which an organization divides and coordinates its labor

into distinct tasks (Mintzburg, 1979; Scott, 1992). Child

(1972) defines organizational structure as the formal allocation

of work roles and administrative processes to control and

unite/blend work activities including those outside the formal

organizational boundaries. Leavitt’s (1964) model portrays

organizations as multivariate systems consisting of four

interacting variables: (1) tasks – work performed to accomplish

goal(s), (2) structure – systems of authority, communication,

workflow and rewards, (3) technology – problem solving inventions

used by the organization and (4) people. Culture was later added

as an interlocking variable in addition to Leavitt’s original

model (Ouchi and Wilkins, 1985). Culture for organizations is

defined as patterns of shared values and beliefs that enable

workers to understand why things happen within the organization

and provides the behavioral norms of the organization (Deshpande

and Webster, 1989). Organizational climate is often used

interchangeably in organizational behavioral literature, but it

is a separate concept referring to members’ perceptions to the

extent the organization is fulfilling their expectations

(Deshpande and Webster, 1989).

Organizational structures evolve in response to any number of

social, political and technological influences (e.g. two way

radio communications), thus leading to an increase in

organizational complexity for police agencies (Kelling and Moore,

1988). This evolution has lead to specialization and

centralization of police agencies and increased the scope and

scale of administration along with more formal rules, policies,

procedures and standards also known as a bureaucratic structural

form (Maguire, 1997).

Many policing scholars have cited the paramilitary command and

control organizational structure of U.S. police agencies has a

central role in the problems that plague policing (Angell 1971;

Bittner, 1970; Fogelson, 1977, Fry and Berkes, 1983; Klockars,

1985; Skolnick and Fyfe, 1993). Only a few police agencies have

embraced community policing, completely changing their

philosophy, structure and operations (Lurigio and Rosenbaum,

1994). Advocates for community policing have argued police

agencies must decentralize (Kelling and Moore, 1988), deformalize

(Goldstein, 1990), de-specialize (Mastrofski and Ritti, 1995),

de-layer (Mastrofski, 1994) and civilianize (Skolnick and Bayley,

1988). In other words, police agencies need to decentralize

administration, eliminate dispensable polices and procedures,

promote officers as generalist instead of specialists, collapse

the hierarchal rank structure and hire civilian employees for

redundant tasks that do not require a sworn officer.

In addition, changes in community policing requires changing

the principal operating methods and administrative structure of

police agencies (Moore, 1992). By doing so, advocates believe

police agencies will become more versatile and responsive to

their community’s problems. Police reformers believe community

policing represents a significant, fundamental shift from the

police being people-processers to one of people-changers

(Mastrofski and Ritti, 1995). This shift represents the need for

police to reevaluate their organizational structure and make

changes that bring these practices into better alignment. Police

agencies continue to be highly specialized, possessing complex

divisions of labor, hierarchal chains of command and a

substantial system of rules (Kraska and Cubellis, 1997; Maguire,

1997; Willis, Mastrofski, Stephen and Weisburd 2004).

An ‘us vs. them’ mentality is fostered by paramilitary

organizations typically beginning for officers during induction

to the police academy (Albuquerque and Paes-Machado, 2004).

Those that join paramilitary organizations must relinquish their

personal liberty and become an expression of the organizations’

social identity (Hodgson, 2001). Extensive literature on

organizational change indicates that employees must 'buy in' to

structural management reform (Skolnick and Bayley, 1986). Police

organizations are generally known to be resistant to change

(Guyot, 1979; Tafoya, 1990). Therefore, any attempt to reform

the bureaucratic paramilitary command and control organizational

structure of police agencies would be wise to look towards police

academies as fertile ground for sowing the seeds of change.

A major component in the elimination of violence in modern

Western society has been to extend a virtual monopoly on the

legitimate right to use coercive force onto police (Klockars,

1988). Klockars (1988) cites Bittner (1970, p.46) on the role of

police as "a mechanism for the distribution of non-negotiable

coercive force employed in accord with an intuitive grasp of

situational exigencies”.

According to Klockars (1988) police can not win the 'war on

crime' because, it is not within their power to change the things

that influence crime in all societies, such as unemployment, the

age distribution of the population, moral education, freedom,

civil liberties, and the social and economic opportunities to

realize ambitions. The first two problems or circumlocutions

Klockars (1988) identifies are the mystification of the concept

of community and the mixed metaphors of reduced crime. The

expectation according to Klockars (1988) to reduce crime is the

third circumlocution. However, the assumption itself is

converted into an untestable and irrefutable promise of

prevention with an escape clause under which failures are the

fault of the 'community.’ Civilianization, according to Klockars

(1988), is the fourth and final circumlocution of community

policing. Klockars (1988) concludes the only reason to maintain

police in modern society is to have available a corps of persons

with almost unrestricted right to use force and, when necessary,

lethal force to bring certain situations under control. King &

Lab, 2000 refer to community policing as 'old wine in new

bottles' furthering the perspective that community policing is a

circumlocution.

Kraska and Cubellis (1997) combined their survey data

study data on paramilitary unit policing from small-locality

police agencies with less than 100 sworn officers serving

between 25,000 and 50,000 citizens with data from larger

police agencies to produce a descriptive longitudinal study

concluding a shift is occurring within the institution of

police towards paramilitary unit policing. However, they

note this is not a mutually exclusive shift and acknowledge

a simultaneous shift towards community policing is also

occurring (Kraska and Cubellis, 1997). Of the 473 police

agencies in the Kraska and Cubellis (1997) sample of

agencies with fewer than 100 sworn officers, 311 had a

paramilitary unit (e.g. SWAT, special response team or

emergency response unit) and 46 planned to develop one.

Kraska and Cubellis (1997) point out that community

oriented reformers prescribe a change from reacting to calls

for service to a proactive model in which police

collectively maintain order and become community problem

solvers (Goldstein, 1990; Kelling, 1988; Trojanowicz and

Bucqueroux, 1990). Their research on small police agencies

and the data they reviewed from larger agencies (Kraska and

Kappeler, 1997 found paramilitary policing units were being

used proactively to ‘suppress’ high profile problems in

economically deprived areas (Kraska and Cubellis, 1997).

Some police administrators have interpreted the proactive

prescription of reformers as a call to proactively institute

a climate of order (Bayley, 1996), thus requiring a more

militaristic approach to achieve the goal (Kraska and

Kappeler, 1997). Such police administrators see

paramilitary units as complementing community policing, not

replacing it (Kraska and Kappeler, 1997).

Waddington (1987) espoused that co-ordination through

superior command and control in addition to protective

clothing, public order units, formational deployment and the

willingness to use force defined paramilitary policing and

allowed for a more disciplined response to disorderly and

violent situations than community policing or other

traditional methods. Waddington (1993) contends Jefferson’s

(1990) argument against modern methods of police (i.e.

paramilitary policing) in controlling riots and other such

disturbances is more of a reflection of Jefferson’s

‘distaste’ in the methods used by police in such situations

as civil unrest/rioting than any empirical evidence.

Waddington (1993) asserts police have the monopoly on the

use of force, as Bittner (1970) is famous for proclaiming,

and because of this, he concludes superior command and

control is a necessity in riot situations. Waddington (1987)

also believes paramilitary policing ` brings accountability

to police actions in such situations more so than community

policing or other traditional methods.

Waddington (1993) further argues that paramilitary policing

does not escalate the inevitability of physical violence as

Jefferson (1990) asserts. While Waddington (1993) is discussing

paramilitary policing as a tactic involving specially trained

units rather than policing strategy, it is clear that police must

be able to fulfill their mandate of maintaining order and command

and control is key to success. This becomes acutely clear under

such situations as civil unrest/riots, natural disasters and a

terrorist attack. The responses in these types of situations

demand special training, equipment and strict command and control

by superiors.

VIII. Combining the various community service strategies to

create a holistic, dynamic and fluid

definition of community policing.

Combining these competing but similar perspectives under one

overarching umbrella should give police agencies of all sizes and

maturity the ability to implement community policing and create a

multiplicity of strategies for police in combatting and deterring

crime. In order to successfully adopt a new holistic, dynamic

and fluid community service model in policing, police agencies

must be able to change their currently predominate paramilitary

command and control structure, revise their mission statement,

rewrite the policy and procedure manual, bring training into

accordance with all of the aforementioned points and finally

evaluate performance of personnel in accordance with their new

mission statement and policy and procedures.

Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce (2010) conducted an

observational study that sought to investigate how training

deals with changes in law enforcement at a Florida community

college police academy operated by public safety institute.

This academy created a progressive curriculum incorporating

community policing and problem solving into a scenario based

format following five cohorts of police academy recruits.

Chappell and Lanza-Kaduce (2010) observed the paramilitary

structure and culture of this academy did not integrate well

with the principals of community policing. Chappell and

Lanza-Kaduce (2010) offered three recommendations to police

academies trying to integrate community policing into police

academy training. First, they recommend rethinking the

hierarchical paramilitary structure to endorse a more

horizontal structure that occurs in many community policing

activities. Second, the informal curriculum must be in

alignment with the formal curriculum. Third, academies

should eliminate the ‘us vs. them’ mentality and the culture

it develops, instead fostering the long-term benefits of

community policing and its problem solving abilities.

The real benefit of this new holistic approach to community

policing is the ability of police to utilize more than one

strategy or tactic and/or innovation to combat or deter crime

and/or the fear of crime with citizen participation at all levels

in varying manners. No one strategy is effective in every

situation but combined they give police flexibility in deciding

which strategy and accompanying tactics best fit in solving

community problems. Implementing the various types of community

policing would provide agencies with an array of potential

responses to problems. It would also facilitate more effective

responses to certain types of crime.

IX. Conclusion

These competing perspectives (i.e. hot spot, problem oriented,

intelligence led and broken windows policing) are actually

complimentary of each other and, when combined, fulfill a new

holistic, dynamic and fluid community policing strategy.

According to Greene et al. (1994) if community policing is to

succeed in the US, police organizations must alter the framework

and organizational structure of their organizations. Changing

the structural apparatus of US police agencies away from the

paramilitary command and control structure should yield leaner

and more responsive agencies (Mastrofski 1994; Mastrofski and

Ritti 1995). If community policing reform advocates are correct,

agencies that implement only certain elements of community

policing without changing the organizational structure of the

agency will maintain or revert to traditional forms of policing.

The continued existence of the community policing depends on

organizational structural changes according to Greene, Bergman

and McLaughlin (1994). A major obstacle to structural change in

any organization is organizational inertia (Hannan and Freeman,

1984).

Advocates of community policing differ on the amount or need

for structural change. Skolnick and Bayley (1986, 1988) believe

structural change is a lay element of community policing.

Structural change is a necessary antecedent to community policing

as Green et al. (1994) argue. It may simply be a helpful

addition to community policing as Goldstein (1979) has suggested.

If Green et al. (1994) is correct in asserting structural

change is an antecedent to community policing then the

failure to do so dilutes community policing and ultimately

leads to police agencies reverting back to more traditional

models of policing. However, nowhere in the literature

reviewed is there a third option. Option one is maintain

the current paramilitary command and control organizational

structure and thereby never fully implementing community

policing. Option two is completely discard the paramilitary

command and control organizational structure and fully

embrace community policing. A stalemate in the full

implementation of community policing has developed as a

result.

Future research may want to consider the possibility of a

third option where police agencies utilize two

organizational structures. One organizational structure

oriented towards community policing with a less bureaucratic

organizational model for everyday police work and one

oriented towards paramilitary command and control structure

to be used only in the event of large-scale emergencies such

as, civil unrest/riots, natural disasters and terrorist

attacks. The three recommendations made by Chappell and

Lanza-Kaduce (2010) after their observational study of a

Florida police academy to rethink the paramilitary command

and control organizational structure, align informal and

formal curriculum and elimination of the us vs. them

mentality in police training academies reveals a duel

philosophical perspective already manifests itself in police

academies.

Works Cited

Albuquerque, C. L., & Paes-Machado, E. (2004). The hazing machine: The shaping of Brazilian military recruits. Policing and Society , 14 (2), pp. 175-192.Angell, J. E. (1971). Toward an Alternative to the Classic Police Organizational Arrangements: A Democcratic Model. Criminology , 9, pp. 195-206.Bayley, D. H., & Nixon, C. (2010). The Changing Environment for Policing, 1985-2008. Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School Program in Criminal Justice Policy and Management. Washington, D.C.: Natiional Institute of Justice.Bayley, D. H., & Shearing, C. D. (1996). The future of policing. Law and Society Review , 30, 585-605.Bittner, E. (1970). The Functions of Police in Modern Society. Chevy Chase, USA: National Clearinghouse for Mental Health.Braga, A. (2001). The effects of hot spots policing on crime. ANNALS of the American Academy of Political Science (578), 104-125.Child, J. (1972). Organizational structure, environment and performance: The role of strategic choice. Sociology , 6 (1), 1-22.Clarke, R. V. (1992). Situational crime prevention: Theory and practice. British Journal of Criminology , 20, 165-182.Clarke, R. V., & Eck, J. E. (2005). Crime Analysis for Problem Solvers: 60 Small Steps. Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Washington, DC.: US Department of Justice.Clarke, R. V., & Newman, G. R. (2007). Police and the Prevention of Terrorism. Policing , 1 (1).Cohen, L. E., & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review , 44, 588-608.Community Policing Consortium. (1994). Understanding Community Policing: A Framework for Action. The Bureau , 107 (5).

Cordner, G. W. (1997). Comunity policing: element and effects. In R. G. Dunham, & G. P. Alpert, Critical Issues in Policing: Contemporary Readings. (3rd ed. ed., pp. 451-468.). Prospect Heights, IL, USA: Waveland.Deshpande, R., & Webster, Jr., F. E. (1989). Organizational Culture and Marketing: Defining the Research Agenda. The Journal of Marketing , 53 (1), 3-15.Eck, J. E., & Maguire, E. (2000). Have Changes in Policing Reduced Violent Crime? An Assessment of the Evidence. In A. Blumstein, & J. Wallman, The Drop in America (pp. 207-265.). New York, NY, USA: Cambridge University Press.Eck, J. E., & Spelman, W. (1987). Who Ya Gonna Call? The Police as Problem Busters. Crime and Delinquency , 33, 31-52.Finnegan, W. (2005). The Terrorism Beat: How is the NYPD Defending the City? New Yorker , 81 (21), pp. 58-71.Fogelson, R. M. (1977). Big-City Police. Cambridge, MA, USA: Harvard University Press.Fry, L. W., & Berkes, L. J. (1983). The Paramilitary Police Model: An Organizational Misfit. Human Organization , 42, 225-234.Goldstein, H. (1979). Improving Policing: A Problem-OrientedApproach. Crime and Delinquency , 25, 236-258.Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem Oriented Policing. New York, NY, USA: McGraw-Hill.Greene, J. R., & Mastrofski, S. D. (1988). Community Policing: Rhetoric or Reality. Westport, CT, USA: Prager.Greene, J. R., Bergman, W., & McLaughlin, E. (1994). Implementing Community Policing: Cultural and Structural Change in Police Organizations. In D. P. Rosenbaum, The Challenge of Community Policing (pp. 92-109.). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.Guyot, D. (1979). Bending Granite: Attempts to Change the Rank Structure of American Police Departments. Journal of Police Scinece and Administration , 7, 253-284.Hannan, M. T., & Freeman, J. (1984). Structural Inertia and Organizational Change. American Sociological Review , 49, 149-164.He, N., Zhao, J., & Lovrich, N. P. (2005). Community Policing: A Preliminary Assessment of Environmental Impact

with Panel Data on Program Imlementation In U.S. Cities. Crime and Delinqueny , 51 (3), 295-317.Hodgson, J. (2001). Police violence in Canada and the USA: Analysis and management. Policing , 24, 520-549.Jefferson, T. (1990). The Case Against Paramilitary Policing. Milton Keynes: Open University Press.Kelling, G. L. (1988). Police and Communities: The Quiet Revolution. Washington, DC: National Institute of Justice.Kelling, G. L., & Bratton, W. J. (2006). Policing Terrorism.Civic Bulletin (43).Kelling, G. L., & Coles, K. M. (1996). Fixing Broken Windows: Restoring and Reducing Crime in Our Communites. New York, New York, USA: Free Press.Kelling, G. L., & Moore, M. H. (1988). The Evolving Strategy of Policing. Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government. National Institute of Justice, U.S. Department of Justice.Kelling, G., & Bratton, W. J. (1998). Declining Crime Rates:Insider Views of The New York City Story. The Journal of Criminal Law & Criminology , 88 (4), p. 1217.King, W. R., & Lab, S. P. (2000). Crime prevention, community policing and training: old wine in new bottles. Police Practice and Research , 1, 241-252.Klockars, C. B. (1985). The Idea of Police. Beverly Hills, CA, USA: Sage.Klockers, C. B. (1988). The Rhetoric of Community Policing. In J. R. Greene, & S. D. Mastrofski, Community Policing:Rhetoric or Reality (pp. 239-258). New York, USA: Prager.Kraska, P. B., & Kappeler, V. E. (1997). Militarizing American Police: The Rise and Normalization of Paramilitary Units. Social Problems , 44, 1-18.Kraska, P. (1996). Enjoying militarism: Political/personal dilemmas in studying U.S. police paramilitary units. Justice Quarterly , 13, pp. 405-429.Kraska, P., & Cubellis, L. J. (1997). Militarizing mayberry and beyond: Making sense of Amerian paramilitary policing. Justice Quarterly , 14 (4), 607-629.Leavitt, H. J. (1964). Applied Organization Change in Industry: Structural, Technical, and Human Approaches. In W.

W. Cooper, H. J. Leavitt, M. W. Shelly, & eds., New Perspectives in Organization Research,. New York, NY, USA: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.Lurigio, A. J., & Rosenbaum, D. P. (1994). The impact ot community policing on police personnel: a review of the literature. In D. P. Rosenbaum, The Challenge of Community Policing:Testing the Promises. (pp. 147-163.). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.Maguire, E. R. (1997). Structural Change in Large Municipal Police Organizations During the Community Policing Era. Justice Quarterly , 14 (3), 547-576.Maguire, E. R., & Katz, C. M. (2002). Community Policing, Loose Coupling, and sensmaking in American Police Agencies. Justice Quarterly , 19, 503-536.Mastrofski, S. D. (1994). Community Policing and Police Organization Structure. University of Montreal. Boston: Centre for Comparative Criminology.Mastrofski, S. D., & Ritti, R. R. (1995). Making Sense of Community Policing: A Theory Based Analysis. Annual meeting of the American Society of Criminology. Boston.Mastrofski, S., Willis, J. J., & Rienhart, K. T. (2007). Thechallenges of implementing community policing in the United States. Policing: A Journal of Policy and Practice , 1 (2), 223-234.McGarrell, E. F., Chemak, S., & Weiss, A. (2000). Reducing Firearms Violence Through Directed Police Patrol: Final Report on the Evaluation of the Indianapolis Police Department's Directed Patrol Project. National Institute of Justice. Washington, DC: US Department of Justice.Mintzberg, H. (1979). The Structuring of Organizations: A Synthesis of theResearch. University of Illinois . Urbana, IL: Urbana-Champaign's Academy for Entrepreneurial Leadership Historical Research Reference in Entrepreneurship.Moore, M. H. (1992). Problem Solving and Community Policing.In M. Tonry, & N. Morris, Modern Policing (pp. 99-158). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.National Research Council Committee to Review Research on Police Policy & Practices, Committee on Law & Justice, Division of Behavioral & Social Sciences & Education. (2004). Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing: The Evidence. (W. Skogan,

& K. Frydl, Eds.) Washington, D.C., USA: The National Academies Press.Ouchi, W. G. (1980). Markets, Bureaucracies, and Clans,. Administrative Science Quarterly , 25, 129-141.Peterson, M. (2005). Intelligence-Led Policing: The New Intelligence Architecture. U.S. Dept. of Justice, Bureau of Justice Assistance. Washington, D.C.C.: U.S. Dept of Justiice.Reiss, A. J. (1992). Police Organization in the Twentieth Century. In M. Tonry, & N. Morris, Modern Policing (pp. 51-98). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Rosenbaum, D. P. (1994). Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promise. Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.Rosenbaum, D. P. (1994). The impact of community policing onpolice personnel: a review of the literature. In D. P. Rosenbaum, The Challenge of Community Policing: Testing the Promises. (pp. 147-163). Thousand Oaks, CA, USA: Sage.Rosenbaum, D. (2006). The limits of hot spots policing. In D. Weisburd, & A. A. Braga, Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives(pp. 245-263). Cambridge, MA, USA: Cambridge University Press.Sadd, S., & Crinc, R. M. (1996). Implementation Challenges in Community Policing: Innovative Neighborhood-Oriented Policing in Eight Cities. Research in Brief .Scott, W. R. (1992). Organizations: Rational, Natural, and Open Systems.(3rd ed. ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ, USA: Prentice-Hall.Sherman, L. (1990). Police Crackdowns: Initial and Residual Deterrence. In M. Tonry, & N. Morris, Crime and Justice: A Review ofResearch (Vol. 12, pp. 1-48.). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Sherman, L. W., Farrington, D. P., Welsh, B. C., & MacKenzie, D. L. (2002). Evidence-Based Crime Prevention. New York,NY, USA: Routledge.Sherman, L., & Rogan, D. (1995). Effects of Gun Seizures on Gun Violence: Hot Spots Patrol in Kansas City. Justice Quarterly(12), 673-694.Sherman, L., Gartin , P., & Buerger, M. (1989). Hot Spots ofPredatory Crime: Routine Activities and the Criminology of Place. Criminology (27), 27-55.

Skogan, W. G. (1990). Disorder and Decline: Crime and the Spiral of Decay in American Cities. New York, NY, USA: Free Press.Skogan, W. (2006). The promise of community policing. In D. Weisburd, & A. A. Bragg, Police Innnovation: Contrasting Perspectives (pp. 27-43). Cambridge, MA, USA: Cambridge University Press.Skogan, W., & Frydl, K. (2004). Fairness and Effectiveness in Policing:The Evidence. Washington, D.C., USA: National Academies Press.Skolnick, J. H., & Bayley, D. H. (1986). The New Blue Line: PoliceInnovation in Six American Cities. New York, NY, USA: Free Press.Skolnick, J. H., & Bayley, D. H. (1988). Theme and Variationin Community Policing. In M. Tonry, & N. Morris, Crime and Justice: A Review of Research (Vol. 10, pp. 1-37.). Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.Skolnick, J. H., & Fyfe, J. J. (1993). Above the Law: Police and the Excessive Use of Force. New York, NY, USA: Free Press.Stojkovic, S., Kalinich, D., & Klofas, J. (2012). Criminal Justice Organizations: Administration and Management (5th ed.). Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth.Tofoya, W. L. (1990). Understanding Resistance to Change: Implications for the Future of Police. American Journal of Police ,9, 183-188.Trojanowicz, R., & Bucqueroux, B. (1990.). Community Policing: AContemporary Perspective. Cincinnati, OH, USA: Anderson.U.S. Department of Justice. (2000b). What Is Community Policing? .Office of Community Oriented Policing . Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice.Waddington , P. J. (1987). Towards Paramiltarism? Dilemmas in the Policing of Public Order. British Journal of Criminology , 27,37-46.Waddington, P. J. (1993). The Case Against Paramilitary Policing Considered. British Journal of Criminology , 33 (3), 353-373.Walker, J. T. (1999). Statistics in Criminal Justice: Analysis and Interpretation. Gaithersburg, MD, USA: Aspen Publishing.Walker, S., & Cole, G. F. (2013). Putting Justice Back into Criminal Justice: Notes for a Liberal Criminal Justice Policy . In G. F. Cole, M. G. Gertz, & L. Ganster (Ed.), TheCriminal Justice System: Politics and Policies (10th ed., p. 644). Belmont, CA, USA: Wadsworth.

Weisburd, D., & Braga, A. A. (2006). Hot spots policing as amodel for police innovation. In D. Weisburd, & A. A. Braga, Police Innovation: Contrasting Perspectives (pp. 225-255). Cambridge, MA, USA: Cambridge University Press.Weisburd, D., & Lum, C. (2005). The diffussion of computerized crime mapping policing: linking research and practice. Police Practice and Research , 6, 433-448.Weisburd, D., & Mazerolle, L. G. (2000). Crime and disorder in drug hot spots: implications for theory and practice in policing. Police Quarterly , 3, 331-349.Weisburd, D., & McKewen, T. e. (1998). Crime Mapping and Crime Prevention. Monsey, NY, USA: Criminal Justice Press.Willis, J., Mastrofski, S., & Weisburd, D. (2004). COMPSTAT and bureaucracy: A case study of challenges and opportunities for change. Justice Quarterly , 21, 462-496.Wilson, J. Q., & Kelling , G. L. (1982, March). Broken Windows. the Atlantic .Worrall, J. L. (2008). Crime Control in America What Works? (seconded.). Boston , MA, USA: Allyn & Bacon.Zhao, J., Lovrich, N., & Thurman, Q. (1999). The status of community policing in American cities: Facilitators and impediments revisited. Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management , 22 (1), pp. 74-92.